PC LOAD LETTER: Go start a revolution then. Good luck with that.

It's called the Free State Project. It's already been started, and it's going on now. I may very well move to New Hampshire and participate in it. Thank you for your well wishes.

PC LOAD LETTER: You won't get anyone elected to change the fundamentals of American Government in any real way. Americans want a small change, not a revolution in government. This is not a small change you are proposing. Move or try to overthrow the government. Or you can continue to whine about how unfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair it all is on Fark.

I realize that, we have a self-serving two-party system. I don't expect to get a libertarian president elected and I don't expect or want to change everyone's mind, that's the point of the Free State Project. I have no desire to overthrow the government, not sure what you're rambling on about or what you think I advocate.

Oh, I see, so when you don't like an idea or policy it's an airing of grievances but when I don't like something you support I am "whining" about how "unfaaaaaaaaaiiir" it is. Very mature. Tell you what, I don't want to see you taking issue with anything the US government does ever again, because by your logic that will make you a whiner and a hypocrite, and the proper way to deal with it will be "through your representative" rather than "here on Fark." Of course, I already know you're a complete hypocrite because I've seen you take issue with US or state policies in numerous other threads, but it's okay when you do it I guess, since you're always right and everyone else is always wrong.

shut up

No thank you, I'll keep exercising my first amendment rights. I invite you to do the same. I'm not afraid of opposing ideas, in fact, I welcome them.

People need to be forced. Sorry. It's the way it has been since the damn dawn of Governments in Human history.

No, as long as they aren't aggressing against others, they really don't, and that's a pretty scary authoritarian mindset. Humans are noble autonomous creatures, and I think it's sad and sick that you try to reduce us to some sort of insectoid hive-mind or a timid pack animal to be led around for our own good. I don't want a part of any society that would turn me into that, although you are welcome to live in one. I can make my own decisions as long as I am not harming anyone else. That is morally right. Using force to coerce other people to do what you want them to do is morally wrong, unless they have harmed you first in a meaningful way (not to be confused with hurt feelings, or a denial of services that you feel you are entitled to for some unnatural reason).

You really think that all governments were good and an improvement upon the human condition? The vast majority were evil and self-serving for a select few.

uatuba:

Well, conservatism hasn't existed since Regan. And even then, his foreign policy was far from conservative.


Reagan wasn't even an old-school conservative in my opinion. He started pushing deficits back up that had been decreasing since Truman, as well as bloating the military-industrial complex (remember, not a term coined by liberals) to unheard of levels.

To me, he was the first of the false conservatives. It's just that since he didn't go absolutely nuts on the social conservative end of things, he seems much more old-school than the modern cons.

I just hope the Treasury isn't using Epson printers, cause man, those things suck the ink.

/Can't print money with Light Magenta out
//No Light Magenta needed, though
///Staple Premium member
////Member

I just love how the retards think that paying the government in a bit more taxation for universal health care is wrong compared to giving WAY more money to private insurers to provide health care as they see fit to a few.

And printing money WILL lead to inflation, devaluation, and needless to say higher cost of living.

So keep cheering you brainless retards, I hope the image of Obama will gently warm your heart as you live in a cardboard box while dying of pneumonia.

ragekage: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Could you at least make it a little less obvious on which trolling headlines you write, Nemo?

Not just that, but you wrote that sentence without any sense of irony. Like that's any different than previous administrations. Our government has been printing it's way out of hard times since, oh, the Civil War. Methinks it's you who has gone full retard; sadly, I'm afraid I must farky you as such.

No kidding. Plus, do you want to take the side of some moron like him who doesn't know the difference between the money supply and the federal deficit?

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: It's called the Free State Project. It's already been started, and it's going on now. I may very well move to New Hampshire and participate in it. Thank you for your well wishes

Sure. Right. That'll take off. Just like RON PAUL's candidacy.

Read The Populist Moment and learn why sweeping political movements fail in the US.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Oh, I see, so when you don't like an idea or policy it's an airing of grievances but when I don't like something you support I am "whining" about how "unfaaaaaaaaaiiir" it is. Very mature. Tell you what, I don't want to see you taking issue with anything the US government does ever again, because by your logic that will make you a whiner and a hypocrite, and the proper way to deal with it will be "through your representative" rather than "here on Fark." Of course, I already know you're a complete hypocrite because I've seen you take issue with US or state policies in numerous other threads, but it's okay when you do it I guess, since you're always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Well, when you are proposing fantasy and you come here complaining how horrible the current system is, yeah, that's whining. I complain about things that a vote for the other guy has a far more likely chance of changing. I voted for the other guy. So far, most of the things he's done I agree with, but there's a lot I don't. If he (or Congress) doesn't do the right thing, we change them like dirty underwear, unless the "other guy" is even worse (which is what the GOP has become). I think both parties suck and need housecleaning. I view Libertarians and Greens in the exact same light: groups that want to legislate the unlegislatable. No one will vote for measures they are proposing unless one of 2 things happen: 1) they get into ever legislative body as the majority. If it hasn't already started, it won't happen anytime soon. No one in any major party is willing to move over and the public isn't buying the message enough to actually elect people to power. 2) a hugely popular and charismatic leader comes to power. I mean HUGELY. Making Obama look like late term Bush in popularity. Even then, the "coattails" would be people who run as D or R who adopt their policies. Right. Just like the current Congress ("sure we'll do what Obama says, just vote for us. [time passes] Oh that promise? I don't recall it."). The chances of 1 AND 2 happening at the same time are basically zero.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: No, as long as they aren't aggressing against others, they really don't, and that's a pretty scary authoritarian mindset. Humans are noble autonomous creatures, and I think it's sad and sick that you try to reduce us to some sort of insectoid hive-mind or a timid pack animal to be led around for our own good. I don't want a part of any society that would turn me into that, although you are welcome to live in one. I can make my own decisions as long as I am not harming anyone else. That is morally right. Using force to coerce other people to do what you want them to do is morally wrong, unless they have harmed you first in a meaningful way (not to be confused with hurt feelings, or a denial of services that you feel you are entitled to for some unnatural reason).

Define "morality"...

Regardless, Governments exist to prevent societal collapse. Well, that's the frontal reason. They really exist to keep themselves in power and further whatever agenda they think is right, whether it be world domination, peaceful co-existence, or just simple law-and-order. They do this by compelling the populace to go along and by enacting measures to ensure the philosophy of the ruling class is carried out. Is that tyranny? Possibly, but literally every government (including a Kibbutz or commune) is like that. And they all use some sort of threat or force. What you propose is not going to work.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: You really think that all governments were good and an improvement upon the human condition? The vast majority were evil and self-serving for a select few.

Yet despite their evils, we are having a conversation on the Internet. That alone is a testament to the power of Government.

No, I don't think governments are good. I do think that the alternatives are horrendous.

PC LOAD LETTER: No one in any major party is willing to move over

I'll change that to "extremely few". I'll give you Barr and McKinney as shining examples of people brave enough to buck the system. Go team!

wow pretty much every active politics tab troll made it to this thread. atleast one of em even admitted to being a troll

/good job modmins, you cockbags.

FoxNoise history, re-imagined:
January 20, 2001 - Unemployment drops to .001% within hours of the inauguration, slacker liberals who don't want to work are the only ones without jobs. Happiness spreads throughout the land, and all is right with the world.

January 21, 2001 - January 19th, 2009 - You have nothing to fear, war is peace, up is down, slavery is freedom. Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

January 20th, 2009 - OMGWTFBBQ!!!! Unemployment rises to 1,000,000%! Fire... flood... earthquake... locusts... 40 days and 40 nights... the meteors from space... sekrit muslin terrists... gay marrying abortion doctors are breaking into your house... we're all gonna die... zombie apocalypse!!!!!1!

madblader: I just love how the retards think that paying the government in a bit more taxation for universal health care is wrong compared to giving WAY more money to private insurers to provide health care as they see fit to a few.

And printing money WILL lead to inflation, devaluation, and needless to say higher cost of living.

So keep cheering you brainless retards, I hope the image of Obama will gently warm your heart as you live in a cardboard box while dying of pneumonia.

You seem to support Universal Health Care, but despise Obama, I think? Anyway, we actually need inflation right now. We were dangerously close to deflation a little while ago(don't know where we sit now). Incidently deflation is way worse than inflation.

Inflation isn't inherantly a bad thing. Unless it's out of control, which right now it's not and there are zero indicators that it will be anytime in the future.

In a nutshell, inflation occurs-that is, the purchasing power of the dollar shrinks-to the extent that the nominal supply of dollars grows faster than the real demand to hold dollars. A standard approach to analyzing the connection between the money supply (M) and the general price level (P) uses an accounting identity called the "equation of exchange":

MV = Py

where V denotes the income-velocity of money (the number of times per year the average dollar turns over in transactions for final goods and services), and y denotes the economy's real income (as measured, e.g., by real GDP). Because V is defined as Py/M, the ratio of nominal income to money balances, the equation follows. The quantity theory of money (a better name would be "the quantity-of-money theory of the price level") says that a higher or lower level of M does not cause any permanent change in y or desired V-or, in other words, does not permanently affect the real demand to hold money. It follows that, in the long run, a larger M means a proportionally higher P. In less formal terms, putting more dollars in circulation dilutes the purchasing power of each dollar; or: prices rise when there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.

via Library of Economics (new window)

PC LOAD LETTER: Sure. Right. That'll take off. Just like RON PAUL's candidacy.

I never expected Ron Paul to be elected President. You're just creating straw men now.

Read The Populist Moment and learn why sweeping political movements fail in the US.

It's not sweeping, it's very targeted and realistic in its aims. It's already taken off and has had early successes, of course nothing compared to what will happen when the 20,000 number of pledges is met (it's around halfway there now).

The aim of the Free State Project is not to change the entire country. In fact, the entire basis of it is the acknowledgment of what you are saying, that the rest of the country has essentially gone bonkers curtailing individual liberties, growing government into a Colossus, and spending itself into oblivion. It seeks to carve out a small part of the country and live there peacefully, allowing the rest of the country to do the same. A similar type-movement (but not exactly the same) was done by the Mormons with success in Salt Lake City. FYI, Porcfest, the annual Free State Project festival, has doubled in size every year it's been held.

PC LOAD LETTER: Regardless, Governments exist to prevent societal collapse. Well, that's the frontal reason. They really exist to keep themselves in power and further whatever agenda they think is right, whether it be world domination, peaceful co-existence, or just simple law-and-order. They do this by compelling the populace to go along and by enacting measures to ensure the philosophy of the ruling class is carried out. Is that tyranny? Possibly, but literally every government (including a Kibbutz or commune) is like that. And they all use some sort of threat or force. What you propose is not going to work.

Well first of all I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I believe in limited government, and there is no reason why limited government couldn't work.

As for anarchy, it's really not as bad as it sounds. It doesn't mean "chaos" as most people have been indoctrinated into believing it does, it just means self-rule. There's no reason why there couldn't be jails or rules in an anarchist society, they would just be run by private individuals. It's complicated, but so is capitalism compared to previous systems in which what the king or dictator said simply went.

People trot out examples like "Somalia" which are ludicrous for a variety of reasons (by that logic, the Soviet Union would prove that governments are simply too corrupt and dangerous and never work in the end). I agree with you on one point though, it would require a mindset change. I know what you'll probably say, that people are what they are, they're inherently bad, need to be corrected, herded, etc., but that simply isn't true, at least not entirely. If you told people in the middle ages about republicanism or democracy, they would have laughed and told you it was impossible and wouldn't work. It's a complicated subject, but to give another example, after the Soviet Union collapsed, economists prescribed open government and free trade and told the leaders of those countries that everything would magically fix itself. It didn't, because the people of those countries weren't ready for freedom and democracy yet, they were used to the kleptocracy that was communism. When goods were shipped from a store, either the driver of the truck would simply steal the goods, or it would be stolen by the neighborhood people once it arrived at the house. We don't have that problem, because we have established a certain societal framework. So maybe anarchy wouldn't work "right now," but if we evolved mentally and politically a bit, it would be a very workable system, and arguably more economically efficient and liberty-oriented. Again, not an anarchist, but I want it to be treated fairly and not just dismissed as "fringe kookery" as you seem to have been doing in your post. There is no reason why sometime in the future there couldn't be a successful anarchist society. It's simply never really been tried, just as democracy hadn't 1000 years ago.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I'm not worried about Obama going full retard, so much as I am worried about him going full Kafka.

You don't want things to go full Kafka. You really don't.

YodaTuna: madblader: I just love how the retards think that paying the government in a bit more taxation for universal health care is wrong compared to giving WAY more money to private insurers to provide health care as they see fit to a few.

And printing money WILL lead to inflation, devaluation, and needless to say higher cost of living.

So keep cheering you brainless retards, I hope the image of Obama will gently warm your heart as you live in a cardboard box while dying of pneumonia.

You seem to support Universal Health Care, but despise Obama, I think? Anyway, we actually need inflation right now. We were dangerously close to deflation a little while ago(don't know where we sit now). Incidently deflation is way worse than inflation.

Inflation isn't inherantly a bad thing. Unless it's out of control, which right now it's not and there are zero indicators that it will be anytime in the future.

Inflation is usually at 1.5%-3% annually, and right now it's about 10%, and the really bad part is yet to come. So you tell me how this is a good thing.

And we had deflation for 1.5 farking months! Why? Because when oil was high prices naturally tend to rise (factors of production) and when oil went back down, guess what genius...prices came down. Yes, long term inflation is very bad, but not that it is when it's prolonged and sustained, not when it can be explained with a lowering of factors of production.

basemetal: I'm not a big fan of ANY politician but it's hard not to kind of like the guy. He inherited a turd and you have to give him some time. Still, he'll be lucky not to come out looking like Carter, who himself inherited a turd and quickly dropped it.

actually,as much as i hated the carter years,many of carters policys actually made ronnie look pretty good. and they took years to show an effect,way after carter left office. it was indeed an ugly time we went thru,and the burden did get heavy,but after 10 years or so,things began to change. one thing that contributed a lot to our current problem was the nafta agreement,as it gave manufacturers the idea that it was ok to ship manufacturing jobs outside our borders.no manufacturing jobs guarentees no middle class,so you only have rich and poor.
and the rich arent paying the amount they should be into social welfare programs so they are underfunded.without the middle class picking up the tab,things got screwy in a bigger hurry then anyone imagined.

clgrin: clgrin: If I might ask, do you primarily get grant requests for a certain business sector or is more by whoever is in the area. My brother used to do a lot a grant writing himself, but he pretty much only did stuff with think-tanks.

I write grants for a community college, so mostly we write for money supporting our vocational programs, which means we are looking to support workforce development for the industries in our general area. Occasionally we pursue and score funds for something strictly academic, but given the nature of our students, it's not commonplace. I can crank out proposals about autobody repair technology and registered nursing in my sleep!

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: People trot out examples like "Somalia" which are ludicrous for a variety of reasons (by that logic, the Soviet Union would prove that governments are simply too corrupt and dangerous and never work in the end)

I won't answer your entire post (too late, need sleep), but I will say that this is flawed. There are examples of governments working and not working. There are no examples of lack of government working. When I think of lack of governmental control, I think of Somalia, Iraq after we invaded and before we assumed formal control, Afghanistan after the USSR withdrew, the end of the Western Roman Empire (to a certain degree. In reality it was more far controlled than a "fall" suggests), collapse of colonial Africa, and one can even argue part of the French Revolution fits here (though not really).

I am hard-pressed to think of any viable government where there are few rules. Tribes are not a good example: a long and complex set of rules exist.

Anarchy has been tried literally countless times. It always falls to some sort of government sooner rather than later. Usually a strong ruler. And frequently they are rather cruel.

Mr. Right: Klingon Penis: Mr. Right:
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.



He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

The economy was successful. If deficits are a bad thing, your boy Obama is evil incarnate.

This is that whole thing where, someone gets called a hypocrite for calling out a hypocrite. It doesn't work that way.

Party A makes a moral high ground stand against issue X,
Party B does not make a moral high ground stand against issue X,

Party A does issue X
Party B does issue X

Party B points out Party A's hypocrisy in doing issue X
Party A then calls Party B's hypocrisy in doing issue X

Which one of these is invalid?

PC LOAD LETTER: Anarchy has been tried literally countless times. It always falls to some sort of government sooner rather than later. Usually a strong ruler. And frequently they are rather cruel.

Not really, although again it's a complex discussion. Nobody will dispute that if you simply take a capitalist or communist society and yank the government out from under it like yanking a tablecloth out from a set table, it will most likely turn into chaos. Certainly anarchists themselves acknowledge that. But to say that all anarchist societies would end like that is committing a fallacy, and would be like looking at what happened when free trade and democratic government were instituted in Romania and saying, "Clearly democracy relies too heavily on trust and could never be viable long-term, it doesn't account for human nature and will just end in a kleptocracy." But that's not true, because it has worked in the United States and other places. Of course when people have become dependent on a government and only know how to function with a government, when you remove the government suddenly there will be fear, violence, and chaos. The idea is rather evolving into an anarchist society socially and politically, the same way monarchies evolved into republican democracies over time when people were ready to do so. People have to learn to take care of themselves first. It might not be the easiest thing in the world, but it is doable.

madblader: YodaTuna: madblader: I just love how the retards think that paying the government in a bit more taxation for universal health care is wrong compared to giving WAY more money to private insurers to provide health care as they see fit to a few.

And printing money WILL lead to inflation, devaluation, and needless to say higher cost of living.

So keep cheering you brainless retards, I hope the image of Obama will gently warm your heart as you live in a cardboard box while dying of pneumonia.

You seem to support Universal Health Care, but despise Obama, I think? Anyway, we actually need inflation right now. We were dangerously close to deflation a little while ago(don't know where we sit now). Incidently deflation is way worse than inflation.

Inflation isn't inherantly a bad thing. Unless it's out of control, which right now it's not and there are zero indicators that it will be anytime in the future.

Inflation is usually at 1.5%-3% annually, and right now it's about 10%, and the really bad part is yet to come. So you tell me how this is a good thing.



[Citation Needed] on 10% inflation.

Nevermind, I already found that you're more full of shiat than a pig pen. But don't let a little thing like being completely wrong get in the way of your ideology.

http://forecasts.org/inflation.htm

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Second, wind and solar power a total waste of time and resources and are grossly inefficient, unsalvageably so. They are just feel-good do-nothing projects that enrich a select few giant corporations. Nuclear is the future. It's efficient, safe, and clean. There is no reason to invest in anything else right now. The argument that building infrastructure will create jobs to maintain that infrastructure is just more broken window fallacy.

This entire paragraph is basically wrong.
Your assessments of wind, solar, and other technologies are completely and utterly wrong, bold-faced lies used to prop up your argument against renewable fuels.

Solar technology is very viable, and it is cheap and quick to build. Thin-film solar promises to be so inexpensive that individuals will be able to afford systems to power their homes, and the efficiency goes up every year. Parts of Europe already get almost 30% of their energy from wind, and off-shore facilities can produce even more. What is your argument against renewables being "unsalvageably inefficient"? You've done nothing but assert it.

Further, your assessment of nuclear completely ignores the fact that it is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive to build and to run, and takes far longer to construct reactors, not to mention the fact that they aren't clean (waste is not a trivial issue), and the "breeder reactors" are only prototype technology as of yet.


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I could not disagree with your assessment more, and frankly this kind of grossly oversimplified and misguided explanation seems juvenile from an economics standpoint.

Is it, now.
Well clearly since you're calling me juvenile you must have some expertise, right? Some sort of degree? Since you're the expert, give me your learned opinion of why there was a post-war economic boom in America, won't you please?


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Please explain how hiring somebody to build an instrument of war (which presumably sinks the the bottom of the ocean or sees 10 years of service and then rusts in a lot somewhere) makes the country better off economically.

First the government creates economic incentive to build instruments of war via things like DoD contracts. In order to fill those needs, new companies are created (or old ones expanded). Jobs are created to do the work for those companies. The government buys the equipment with the contract money which goes to paying for the company's operation. In order to sustain revenue, generally the company diversifies, using the fruits of their R&D labor to build new technologies. If the company is successful, they will attract investors and create products that are bought by both the general populace and by other countries (see General Electric). Ta-da.

In the case of companies building energy infrastructure components, it is even easier because the product is already a money-maker. Company pays worker to build product, product bought by energy company. Energy company builds facility, hooks it to grid, sells energy. Ta-da. Or even: company builds solar panel, homeowner pays company. Homeowner receives energy, company receives money. Ta-da.

uatuba: I love people that say "look it up" and then don't provide a source.

98% of the time, these people are full of shiat. Look it up.

mark12A: Obama dismissed the idea of a second stimulus

He also was going to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, close Gitmo, give the Gitmo internees US trials, stop using signing statements, post Bills on the Internet so they can be seen by the public before he signed them and so on and so forth... none of which has happened.

He's a nice guy, but an empty suit.

To his credit, The Obamessiah has realized that the anti-terror machinery/policies Bush-Cheney put into place aren't so bad after all. He's like Clinton and both Bushes. Just wanted to be president. Doesn't have any real goals/plan. Reagan had goals.

Bush I was a caretaker, and reacted very professionally when Gulf war I happened. We were lucky to have him at the time.

Clinton had no real plans, just wanted to be prez. The republican congress keep him under control, and he had to be dragged kicking/screaming into doing something about Bosnia.

Bush II had no real plans, other than to be "The Education President", whatever that was. At least Bush II stepped up and got busy after 9/11.

Stop making shiat up, it's giving me a headache.

10.0.0.1: uatuba: I love people that say "look it up" and then don't provide a source.

98% of the time, these people are full of shiat. Look it up.

My source says 99%. I would post the think but I've lost my bookmarks and I'm not going to do your job for you...

/another favorite

Gawdzila: This entire paragraph is basically wrong.
Your assessments of wind, solar, and other technologies are completely and utterly wrong, bold-faced lies used to prop up your argument against renewable fuels.

Solar technology is very viable, and it is cheap and quick to build. Thin-film solar promises to be so inexpensive that individuals will be able to afford systems to power their homes, and the efficiency goes up every year. Parts of Europe already get almost 30% of their energy from wind, and off-shore facilities can produce even more. What is your argument against renewables being "unsalvageably inefficient"? You've done nothing but assert it.

Further, your assessment of nuclear completely ignores the fact that it is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive to build and to run, and takes far longer to construct reactors, not to mention the fact that they aren't clean (waste is not a trivial issue), and the "breeder reactors" are only prototype technology as of yet.

Well, I'm only a materials engineer who worked for the leading producer of wind turbines, what do I know? I'm sure you're more up to date than I am.

Solar technology is currently one of the most expensive technologies to implement because of the advanced materials required to create panels that do anything more than look nice. They get absolutely terrible efficiencies (30% is extremely high and expensive to achieve, 10-15% is more common). It is unreliable and inappropriate for almost anything except housing, and just plain doesn't work in many places in the world for obvious reasons.

Wind technology is probably the most crude, the baseball bat of the energy world if you will. Suffers from corrosion (especially near oceans, where most of them are), mechanical failures, buildup which has to be cleaned. Gigantic in scale, expensive materials, you need rows and rows of them to get any good payout. Can't be operated in winds that are too high or too low. Low efficiencies (usually around 15 percent), not to mention they are an unbelievable eyesore.

Nuclear reactors are expensive, but once they are built, the efficiencies and amount of power they generate are overwhelming. There's a reason country like France and Japan get almost all their energy from nuclear sources. Efficiencies can be 80% or higher and the payout is tremendous. Waste is a trivial problem, it can be stored safely underground and contrary to popular belief doesn't cause nuclear fallout if it falls off a train. Designs have come a far way in 30 years, of course we don't have many examples because the US won't invest in them.

You are misinformed.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: PC LOAD LETTER: Anarchy has been tried literally countless times. It always falls to some sort of government sooner rather than later. Usually a strong ruler. And frequently they are rather cruel.

Not really, although again it's a complex discussion. Nobody will dispute that if you simply take a capitalist or communist society and yank the government out from under it like yanking a tablecloth out from a set table, it will most likely turn into chaos. Certainly anarchists themselves acknowledge that. But to say that all anarchist societies would end like that is committing a fallacy, and would be like looking at what happened when free trade and democratic government were instituted in Romania and saying, "Clearly democracy relies too heavily on trust and could never be viable long-term, it doesn't account for human nature and will just end in a kleptocracy." But that's not true, because it has worked in the United States and other places. Of course when people have become dependent on a government and only know how to function with a government, when you remove the government suddenly there will be fear, violence, and chaos. The idea is rather evolving into an anarchist society socially and politically, the same way monarchies evolved into republican democracies over time when people were ready to do so. People have to learn to take care of themselves first. It might not be the easiest thing in the world, but it is doable.

Again, bad analogy. The lack of any real data on an Anarchistic society working over long periods is the problem here. You keep bringing up analogies with copious proof to the opposite case, so no real logical equivalent exists.

The closest we have come to actual Anarchistic societies are essentially highly decentralized governments with loose associations of local cheiftains or warlords or small communities that fell apart as they grew. Ironically the best example of a long-term working Anarchistic-like society is also the best example of long-term working Communist societies: Kibbutzes. In reality even that's not true since they are really Socialist Oligographic Republics if you examine it more closely.

There are 2 things that kill true Anarchy: size and time. And for the latter, not a whole lot of time either.

PC LOAD LETTER: Oligographic

Oligarchic.

ARRRGH, caffeine...

My company looked at solar energy. The ROI was 10-15+ years. It's just not viable at this time, even with heavy subsidies. I don't buy all the AGW hysteria, but I'll gladly use any "green" system that saves me money or even costs a tiny bit more. But it's just not there yet. All the numbers I've seen say the same is true on a larger scale, except in corner cases like a big toasty desert. By all means, let's put in wind and solar where it's useful and viable, but take away the subsidies and GW hysteria and show me the real costs.

As for the stimulus, I don't think people understand what's called the Broken Window Fallacy. Government doesn't have any money of its own. It takes money from the private sector through borrowing, taxation, or inflation. To spend a dollar, it has to take a dollar. If government creates a job, sometimes it destroys a job or prevents one from being created in the private sector. These are unseen costs that politicians ignore. The stimulus isn't going to prime the pump or spur the economy. At best it's like bailing water out of the deep end of a pool and pouring it into the shallow end. If it would, why not make a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th stimulus? Why not break every window in town?

That's why I don't think Peabo "needs time" to show how successful his plan will be after 8 years of But-But-Bush! It won't. Things don't work that way, and they never have worked that way. Of course, the stimulus will be heralded as a success as soon as the economy rebounds on its own, assuming government doesn't do anything else to harm producers in the interim.

OBAMA: "If we act now this package will prevent unemployment from going above 8.5 percent."

Latest Unemployment rate: 9.5 and climbing...oops...what happened?

All together now, BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!

porterm: one thing that contributed a lot to our current problem was the nafta agreement,as it gave manufacturers the idea that it was ok to ship manufacturing jobs outside our borders.no manufacturing jobs guarentees no middle class,so you only have rich and poor.



See, lookie here, that sucking sound you hear..........

Kimbabig OBAMA: "If we act now this package will prevent unemployment from going above 8.5 percent."

Latest Unemployment rate: 9.5 and climbing...oops...what happened?

This^ reaction is pretty ignorant.

So, one dude who's been in office for half a year is supposed to have magically fixed every single fark up of the last 8 years, as well as deal with the consequences of the prior thirty years of fiscal policy?

The economists, and in fact THE ECONOMIST, had no idea what was actually gonna happen, merely suppositions. But those were atleast educated suppositions. This shtick that 'OMG its gone past our expectations! = OBAMA FAILZORSLOLolol' is really quite juvenile.

It is this simple-minded right wing doom and gloom bullshiat that helped encourage the rest of the country to elect Obama in the first place.

/so keep it up and enjoy being relegated to that obscure regional, racist, christian party.

dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

***cough*** apologist, wake up, the man has made things worse

stewmadness: ***cough*** apologist, wake up, the man has made things worse

So how fast would the Economy recover under the Republican plan?

Difficulty: Show your work

So, one dude who's been in office for half a year is supposed to have magically fixed every single fark up of the last 8 years>

Like I said: BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!

Add to that: Obscure regional, racist, christian party! Obscure regional, racist, christian party!, Obscure regional, racist, christian party!

The economists, and in fact THE ECONOMIST, had no idea what was actually gonna happen,

If that's the case then Obama should not have shoved this Spendulous package down the throats of the country under the pretense that it would halt unemployment.

simple-minded right wing doom and gloom bullshiat

He uses this kind of fear tactics on a regular basis to excuse his decisions. i.e. "Now Look! eh, eh eh, er, ughhhhh, If we don't do something now it will be too late...We must act now!"

Translation: Just do what I say and everything will be ok. If it turns out badly we can always blame the previous administration.

(Pulls String from chest of Obamabots)pause(releases string):

BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!,BLAME BUSH!

Lefande
"If you realize that conservatism does not equal religious fundamentalism, you wouldn't make a stupid comment like that."

You are on my favorites list now, sir.

PC LOAD LETTER: stewmadness: ***cough*** apologist, wake up, the man has made things worse

So how fast would the Economy recover under the Republican plan?

Difficulty: Show your work

let us consult the handy crystal ball and find out...

FootInMouthDisease: Kimbabig OBAMA: "If we act now this package will prevent unemployment from going above 8.5 percent."

Latest Unemployment rate: 9.5 and climbing...oops...what happened?

This^ reaction is pretty ignorant.

So, one dude who's been in office for half a year is supposed to have magically fixed every single fark up of the last 8 years, as well as deal with the consequences of the prior thirty years of fiscal policy?

The economists, and in fact THE ECONOMIST, had no idea what was actually gonna happen, merely suppositions. But those were atleast educated suppositions. This shtick that 'OMG its gone past our expectations! = OBAMA FAILZORSLOLolol' is really quite juvenile.

It is this simple-minded right wing doom and gloom bullshiat that helped encourage the rest of the country to elect Obama in the first place.

/so keep it up and enjoy being relegated to that obscure regional, racist, christian party.



I have a $5 bill fresh off my inkjet that says Congress won't bother to even read the next stimulus bill either.


BUT, BUT, BUT BUSH!

dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

Its hard to be patient when you are living on the streets and struggling for food. Just saying.

orbitalfreak: FTFPOTUS:
"It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps up over this summer and fall."

Who here honestly thought that sweeping results would start within just a few months?

I never once heard anybody pushing this say the words, "This is a two-year program." Instead, it was, "We need to vote on this RIGHT NOW! NOW! NOW! Every minute that passes brings us closer to the precipice!" If the urgency is so great that you can't take the time to read, much less debate the bill, it's reasonable to infer that it's effects will be felt almost immediately. In fact, its passage was supposed to prevent unemployment from rising over 8%. As we all know, it's already over 9% and heading North.

I have to laugh at everyone that thinks that "economic stimulus" by the federal government will help an ailing economy. Apparently the concept of inflationary taxation is foreign to nearly all.

YodaTuna: Benjimin_Dover: YodaTuna: Yea we should just work people to death or let old people go homeless!

No. It should have been set up so that it wasn't a Ponzi scheme, moran. Money paid into it stays in it and maybe grows and can be paid out. Not money paid in gets used for roads and bridges and other such "goodies" brought "home" to your district by your anushole representative.

But thanks for playing.

I agree with you. In fact Al Gore agreed with you almost 10 years ago. But the fact that the government keeps dipping into SS does not make it a ponzi scheme. So it doesn't sound like you have a problem with the idea of social security. Just that their are idiots running it right now. I happen to agree.

Correct. It is a ponzi scheme in that it needs to continue to bring in more payers to support the payees. Once the ratio gets below one to one, it falls apart just like any other ponzi scheme.

I have a question. If the money collected for SS from paychecks from the very start of it was put into some kind of account(even a lowly savings type account) and earned a measely 1% interest and with the compounding that would ensue: how big of a pile of cash would be there? I contend that it would be large enough that the interest alone on it would enough to actually start to reduce the amount needed to be collected from current workers. In addition, having that pile of cash sitting around in these banks possibly would have softened or prevented a lot of the current economic problem as it is a huge chunk of capital that could be tapped into for loans and whatnot.

The funny thing is that the federal government MANDATES that kind of behavior from companies as they operate their pension funds. Every year an actuarial audit must be performed to ensure that it is funded properly. It's unfortunate that the congress critters contuinue to think that they or the government is too far above the laws that they write. Hell, take a look at the current Health Care reform they are wrinting. They have already included in the language how they will be exempt from anything passed.

jjorsett: orbitalfreak: FTFPOTUS:
"It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps up over this summer and fall."

Who here honestly thought that sweeping results would start within just a few months?

I never once heard anybody pushing this say the words, "This is a two-year program." Instead, it was, "We need to vote on this RIGHT NOW! NOW! NOW! Every minute that passes brings us closer to the precipice!" If the urgency is so great that you can't take the time to read, much less debate the bill, it's reasonable to infer that it's effects will be felt almost immediately. In fact, its passage was supposed to prevent unemployment from rising over 8%. As we all know, it's already over 9% and heading North.

Exactly. They could have taken the time (say 6 months) to let people read the bill and then instead of the payouts occurring in 2 years, they happen in 18 months.

BUT, that would have exposed the real purpose of the bill which was not stimulus and you know how much congress criters love to have the light of day shined upon their bills for all to see.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants America to fall.

The second.

Andyr2120: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

Add me too, a-hole!

WhyteRaven74:

lefande: That for me is affirmative action.

So there's no way Obama could've done what Sowell did? Really?

No, lack of intelligence. You can't compare Sowell with Obama. It's ridiculous.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Solar technology is currently one of the most expensive technologies to implement because of the advanced materials required to create panels that do anything more than look nice.

Yeah, except for the types that don't involve traditional PV panels, like the extremely cheap-to-manufacture thin-film types that are coming out. As you mentioned these can be used on rooftops, except that they are so inexpensive that many more people will be able to buy them. Or there are types that don't involve panels at all; the solar collector towers or tubes which just use mirrors to do the same thing that nuclear plants do... boil water. They produce no waste, and can be set up and run at a tiny fraction of the cost and time of a nuclear plant.


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Wind technology is probably the most crude, the baseball bat of the energy world if you will. Suffers from corrosion (especially near oceans, where most of them are), mechanical failures, buildup which has to be cleaned. Gigantic in scale, expensive materials, you need rows and rows of them to get any good payout. Can't be operated in winds that are too high or too low. Low efficiencies (usually around 15 percent), not to mention they are an unbelievable eyesore.

This may be true of current turbine types, but apparently it is viable anyway since several countries use it for a significant portion of their power production. Further, as with solar, you write all these renewables off as unmanageably inefficient after only considering the technologies that have been used in the last decade. High-altitude kite generators, and new beyond-the-horizon offshore wind turbines will solve some of these issues.

This is not even mentioning other types of unconventional power, such as wave power, or biodiesel created from captured carbon. These can be used in appropriate places to fill energy production gaps. No need to put all our eggs in one basket.

There is SO MUCH technology that is more innovative, cleaner, cheaper, and quicker to implement than nuclear. And as much as you say it isn't, nuclear waste is not a trivial problem. Underground storage can leak and France, one of the countries you mentioned with a lot of nuclear capacity, is already having problems with exactly that. Furthermore, much of the high-level waste produced is going to have to be managed for over ten thousand years. We simply will not be able to manage the amount of waste we generate if everyone uses large amounts of nuclear power, much less over long periods of time. Why even bother? Better to use technologies that don't produce any such waste.


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Well, I'm only a materials engineer who worked for the leading producer of wind turbines, what do I know? I'm sure you're more up to date than I am.

I'm sure you know plenty about wind turbines, and I defer to your knowledge about the problems concerning current-gen wind turbines. But you still seem recalcitrant to acknowledge that the technologies you call "unsalvageable" continue to improve, or that newer, better technologies exist and are being developed. Whether this is because you don't know about them, or whether this is because you're lying by emission in order to spin your own argument favorably, I don't know.

Gawdzila: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Solar technology is currently one of the most expensive technologies to implement because of the advanced materials required to create panels that do anything more than look nice.

Yeah, except for the types that don't involve traditional PV panels, like the extremely cheap-to-manufacture thin-film types that are coming out. As you mentioned these can be used on rooftops, except that they are so inexpensive that many more people will be able to buy them. Or there are types that don't involve panels at all; the solar collector towers or tubes which just use mirrors to do the same thing that nuclear plants do... boil water. They produce no waste, and can be set up and run at a tiny fraction of the cost and time of a nuclear plant.


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Wind technology is probably the most crude, the baseball bat of the energy world if you will. Suffers from corrosion (especially near oceans, where most of them are), mechanical failures, buildup which has to be cleaned. Gigantic in scale, expensive materials, you need rows and rows of them to get any good payout. Can't be operated in winds that are too high or too low. Low efficiencies (usually around 15 percent), not to mention they are an unbelievable eyesore.

This may be true of current turbine types, but apparently it is viable anyway since several countries use it for a significant portion of their power production. Further, as with solar, you write all these renewables off as unmanageably inefficient after only considering the technologies that have been used in the last decade. High-altitude kite generators, and new beyond-the-horizon offshore wind turbines will solve some of these issues.

This is not even mentioning other types of unconventional power, such as wave power, or biodiesel created from captured carbon. These can be used in appropriate places to fill energy production gaps. No need to put all our eggs in one basket.

There is SO MUCH technology that is more innovative, cleaner, cheaper, and quicker to implement than nuclear. And as much as you say it isn't, nuclear waste is not a trivial problem. Underground storage can leak and France, one of the countries you mentioned with a lot of nuclear capacity, is already having problems with exactly that. Furthermore, much of the high-level waste produced is going to have to be managed for over ten thousand years. We simply will not be able to manage the amount of waste we generate if everyone uses large amounts of nuclear power, much less over long periods of time. Why even bother? Better to use technologies that don't produce any such waste.


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Well, I'm only a materials engineer who worked for the leading producer of wind turbines, what do I know? I'm sure you're more up to date than I am.

I'm sure you know plenty about wind turbines, and I defer to your knowledge about the problems concerning current-gen wind turbines. But you still seem recalcitrant to acknowledge that the technologies you call "unsalvageable" continue to improve, or that newer, better technologies exist and are being developed. Whether this is because you don't know about them, or whether this is because you're lying by emission in order to spin your own argument favorably, I don't know.

You lost me at solar tower. Seriously, the best thing to do would be to go nuclear and, using hydrogen fuel produced by generated electricity from a combination of wind farms and solar panels, blast the waste into the farking sun.

mike.thesauce: oh god, quit your farking biatching already. at least obama isn't taking vacation after vacation after vacation while the country that he was elected to lead was circling the drain economically. at least he WAS elected, and he didn't start a war with another country based on outright lies and faulty intelligence. you farking idiots sit here and biatch about the man, while simultaneously fellating the man who did all these things, and left the next guy to clean up his mess.

/man up and admit you were wrong, instead of hurling these outright idiotic statements around like so much miasma.

Why does everything about Obama still have to be about Bush?

sdaas: dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

Its hard to be patient when you are living on the streets and struggling for food. Just saying.

The Depression Generation laughs at you.